ChrisRid

+1 This is a pretty good idea, it makes sense for the Mayor to be in charge and ensure that the police are following their guidance and could really boost the overall dynamic of the PD as a whole. My only input would be to clearly define what's acceptable as reasoning for a demotion? In other words is it totally down to the Mayors discretion, or does there need to be sufficient reason for demotion? If there needs to be a reason, how can it be logged for the purpose of FailRP reports? And if it's totally the Mayors discretion then how do we identify someone who's abusing the powers? As Smileeface said, there would need to be some kind of timer to prevent the same person from joining straight back again which makes a lot of sense, and ideally this would be in terms of preventing them from joining the job as opposed to a rule if possible. I also feel that the Police Cheif should somehow be involved in this, maybe not as the one to demote necessarily, but given that they are literally the Police Cheif, it makes sense for them to have a say in what's going on with their officers or risk becoming a redundant class. What if (just an idea) the Police Cheif and Mayor must both agree to demote someone in order for it to happen, to avoid potential abuse? If there isn't a Police Cheif then the Mayor could still act alone perhaps?

Congratulations to everyone who's worked hard through the final month of the year to help keep our favourite server as awesome as always A big congratulations to @stretchy on being promoted to DarkRP director! It's absolutely well deserved after how much time and effort you put into DarkRP, you're the man! Super happy for you mate. A huge well done to our MVP's @1998Corolla , @IAmCam and @Wendoly for hitting some crazy sit counts, you guys should be proud! I wish everyone a very happy New Year and here's to another month! Cheers

Just to be very clear here, using the Adv. Dupe to spawn in no-collided props (while the no collide tool is restricted) is by definition an exploit. There's no grey area as to whether it's against the rules to exploit or use loopholes to get around restrictions, which is why co-collided props are currently against the rules. As I mentioned before, if it were allowed then why would the no-collide tool be restricted in the first place? Lack of enforcement is what you're referring to which is a separate issue entirely, and has many factors involved (such as diffusion of responsibility that you're displaying, personal bias, incorrect precedents set before, a 'can't beat them join them' mindset) which makes life a lot more difficult then it needs to be. I would imagine in the case where you say Proggy saw it, I feel it's likely he didn't realise it was no-collided or I'd guess he would have spoken to you. Without his expressed view on the situation, I don't think it's wise to speculate on his thoughts around it, especially when saying his view is encouraging exploitation which I doubt.

I agree completely, it's baffling to me how everyone's still going forwards with "allow the exploit" with no discussion surrounding the no collide tool its-self? Allowing an impractical exploit is definitely not the best way forwards and I'm sat here wondering what I'm missing lol. Following from your points, I'd like to change my response to the following, just to be clear to others and in hope that a reasonable discussion might come from it: -1 for allowing an Adv. Dupe exploit as an impractical way of placing no-collided glass in the server Neutral for allowing the no-collide tool While I like this idea on face value, as it currently stands a moderator can pretty reliably take their months worth of reports in one evening, and so I'm pretty against anything that unnecessarily adds to the current workload, and it goes without saying that players who have a genuine concern would be affected by those who just want a rocket-proof doorway. So while this would be fantastic if the workload wasn't so high, I don't think this is a viable option as of right now unfortunately. I'm not entirely sure what the best answer is, but it would be surrounding the idea of adding the no-collide tool back into DarkRP. I'd be interested to know the reason for it being restricted in the first place, but I'm still edging on the side of a -1 for the reasons I've previously stated, but I'm open to suggestion too, I'm not totally against the idea but still not sure it's a necessary change.

+1 Great application and I love the reasons that you've given for wanting to join the team. You've got a ton of hours in-game and are well known and trusted by many, plus referrals from both Shin and Martian which speaks volumes! You're a chilled guy who I feel would make a superb addition to the team, and so I wish you the best of luck

-1 While I feel this is gratuitous in this instance, in order to satisfy the forum rules surrounding staff applications: I'm certain you're trolling.

Neutral I think a better title for this suggestion (and the main focus here) is “Allow the use of the no-collide tool”, given that using the adv. dupe to spawn any no-collided prop in is a form of exploiting as it currently stands, and not the most practical way of building either. I'm not totally against the idea of allowing it, however I’m not sure I see the need to honestly, given that it’s totally possible to use glass to rocket-proof a base without making it no-collide. I’ve seen some great bases which use standard glass for protection in areas which would be difficult or impossible to base without it, but I’m not sure I see the necessity of it being made no-collide. The only other factor to take into account is that as it stands, only those with access to the Adv. Dupe tool are able to place no-collide glass which restricts this form of rocket proofing to VIP only, and I’m a firm believer that this tool should only be used for convenience and not in ways which affect the games balance. So I’d assume the no-collide tool would then be open to all? If the no-collide tool was allowed, it would also then bring into question all evidence for things like prop block, as it’s all too easy to say a prop was no-collided and not blocking anything. As I say, I’m not totally against the idea of it being allowed but I feel there’s greater weight potentially for disallowing it, even if many do use it already but it simply goes unreported in most cases.

-1 You haven't read the staff rules so I'll have to give you a -1 just on that basis. Some tips for your application though, try to improve the reasons that you've given for wanting to join the staff team. For example, take something that you're good at (lets say you work as an accountant) then you could say you have an eye for detail and it would help you efficiently and accurately gain information from the logs when handling reports. Use your own imagination and take a look at some of the previously accepted staff applications to give you a better idea of what others have said. The two paragraphs is a bare-minimum, and as an avid bookworm I feel you could do a lot better for sure. Impressive reaction time by the way! I don't see how it would benefit you while staffing, but it's pretty cool none the less!

I'll stick to my -1 for getting rid of a fading door for all the reasons previously stated. Just with regards to the suggestion of 3 doors and a keypadded printer vault, this would actually hurt the raider more than the baser. Imagine if you had 3 people basing together, you'd need to crack 6 keypads in total to access all of the printers (3 for the doors, plus three separate printer vaults). If you're going to suggest that the printer vault should only be one, it amounts to the same as the 4th fading door. Plus, often bases have a quick door (which actually helps the raider steal printers if they make it in) but you'd need to crack the keypad for every few printers you take out the vault, instead of just operating one quickdoor. One printer vault would also lead to confusion when it comes to who's printers are who's, I always keep mine separate to other peoples in case either of us mistake the others for our own and take the money.

I think the greater point is that they are able to improve, and we have all started out making bases which weren't all that great. It's only through having been raided, then asking other players what they do and taking suggestions, and through trial and error that we can all improve, and they aren't limited to what level they are in their ability to make a good base either. Taking away one of their doors however could prove to make things even more difficult for them than it already is, given their base is likely not setup for a favourable firefight and that door could make all the difference to them. Whereas to an experienced player, one door doesn't make a great deal of difference, providing we pay attention lol.

Similarly though, low-level players generally make bases which are much easier to raid. So when you look at equal stats of raiders and basers: New players: Make (often) easy to raid bases and are matched with their raiding ability Experienced players: Make difficult to raid bases but (with my counter suggestion) have an increased ability to crack keypads I think this would give a fair solution

Is there a single prop equivalent at all? Just for the sake of simplicity and to avoid any confusion, like for example (and I haven't looked) but say a 1x1 plate? I'd be cool with that

The use of glass is allowed, providing it's not no-collided. So for small bases that would otherwise be obliterated by rockets, glass is ok, but no-collide is not. I think it generally goes unreported, so staff don't often need to get involved. But if people see a base with no-collide glass then they're welcome to make a report

The use of no-collide glass is already against the rules as it currently stands The no-collide tool is already restricted (not allowed) and therefore the only way of having no-collided glass in the server is via exploitation of the Adv. Dupe tool. Before anyone asks, if it was allowed, wouldn't it be a lot easier to allow the use of the co-collide tool?

Neutral I'm not against this idea, and I do actually give plenty of room between my fading doors as it stands when I make a base, just to avoid anyone getting stuck and having to make a report. The reason for bot giving it a +1 is due to the ambiguity of distance, given that for many players it would be pure guess-work when trying to determine what 3 players might look like. If you could specify a prop as a more standardised and simple way of judging the distance then I may be willing to give this a +1, but 3 players is too difficult to implement as it currently stands.

-1 While I understand the desire to make raiding bases easier from a raiders perspective, I don't think this is the right solution for a few reasons. Firstly, I'd like to expand on what StraightWhiteChristianMale has said about the number of fading doors always having been 4. While it may come across as petty to say that people dislike change and "it's always been like that", the truth is that players have got used to the way things are over the years and enjoy the basing rules, having made a number of dupes over the years to fit perfectly in different spots around the map with their doorways in optimal places through trial and error. It would be very easy to disregard their thoughts and feelings when implementing a change to the rules, but it's likely you'll see them jump servers or play other games if the changes are too great (a lot of the major basers have already gone) given that many DarkRP servers allow 4 fading doors and Garnet is not unique in allowing 4. It will also work with the reverse effect, allowing dupes that people have made elsewhere on other servers with the same map to work on this server without any adaptation. While I am aware that there's a number of servers which only allow 3, many more allow 4. (before you ask and as a reminder to others, lets not name drop other servers here). Secondly, it's important to understand that a base should be difficult to raid with the balance tipped in the defenders favour, with good reason. The time and cost of setting up a base in order to turn a profit is high, and if there was a good chance they would be raided before they could even turn a profit then what would be the point in trying? To give you some idea, it takes 1 hour just to break even after fully upgrading a printer, not including the time to set up a base and organise buying printers off others. For me personally, it takes me 30 mins to get setup, perhaps another 15-20 mins if I'm buying printers off others, and 1 hour to break even with upgrades. That's between 1.5-2 hours of gameplay before making any profit. So while it's not everyone's idea of fun, basers are happy to spend this time setting up because they know that as long as they do everything right, they'll make money. If the balance is tipped back the other way, even just the uncertainty will deter players from basing at all. If basers become uncertain with whether they'll make money by farming (basing) then it's likely they won't risk it, given there can be millions at stake. Basers often make up a decent percentage of the population, even if their freinds are all AFK because they've bought their printers, it's still pushing Garnet DarkRP higher up the tables. If you remember when the basers left CityRP, the drop in population was difficult to ignore and it has a knock-on effect that new and active players are more likely to join servers with a higher population. The way raiders successfully raid bases is either through strategy or by chance of the baser being distracted. As far as strategy goes, I've been victim to some of the greatest raiders, for example there was one who noticed that everytime I collected from my printers I would also then (as a meth manufacturer) go to the meth NPC to trade in the meth at the same time. A keen eye caught me out and all it took was a periodic look at the TAB menu to see if my money had gone up, at which point the base was unguarded. I could give other examples of very good strategies (but I don't really want to get raided lol) but use your imagination, that's what's so great about a social game like DarkRP. On the other side though, distraction has made a fool of many a baser over the years, and it's all too easy to 'quickly grab a coffee' or 'pop out for a cigarette' and all of a sudden a brand new level 1 player has made several million from my printers! For me at least, my attention is highest during the first few hours, and lowest towards the end of my farming session, at which point I become unphased with being raided and will be complacent at protecting my printers, allowing many opportunities for those who try their luck at raiding. My point is, even with 2 fading doors and a HK-45, I'm pretty confident that I could adequately defend my base, providing I'm paying attention and anticipate the strategies others employ. The other 2 doors are for that very reason, for those moments when I'm watching a YouTube video and don't immediately realise I'm being raided. With that said, the uncertainty of basing with fewer than 4 fading doors puts me off the idea of basing at all, despite the fact it doesn't really change the odds if I'm on the ball, and if I'm not then chances are a raider would get in anyways. Counter Suggestion In an effort to be as open-minded as possible, I have a counter suggestion that might help with raiding while not totally discouraging basers from trying to make money. What if for each prestige level, the keypad cracker worked 2% faster? This encourages people to prestige and rewards those who already have, by giving them an edge which is reflected in their proficiency of cracking keypads. If you were say prestige 5 as an example, this could mean a decent 10% advantage when keypad cracking, and at prestige 10 you have a 20% advantage! For the highest currently prestige player I know at 20, they would have a 40% advantage!! Just an idea though, trying to find a reasonable compromise which I feel we'd be more comfortable with.

+1 It's a classic, I'm surprised it's not already in the game! Further to the suggestion, what about a can entity that PD roles can drop, so the Mayor can make laws saying 'AOS for refusing to pick up can'? (That was a joke, but it would be funny for 5 mins)

I covered all of these points well in my previous post, and think what I've said holds absolutely solid to your response. I'm not going back and forth anymore as I've given a detailed explanation and I'm bored of 'Nerf the D'Lore' suggestions in general, so I'll leave it here on a -1

That's correct, it won't change a thing other than to irritate those who've spent good money (and everything else I've said previously). Take me up on the challenge if you'd like me to prove it to you? Edit: It's not OP, as I said before there's loads of other weapons with similar stats

Absolutely, I put my money where my mouth is What I'm saying here is that the only argument to nerf the D'Lore is in terms of balancing the game, which it wont given my example. Take me up on the offer if you fancy it mate

My reason for saying "another nerf the D'Lore post" is that they are suggested constantly by the same few people and I've given my full reasoning multiple times, you can find it on any of the other previous suggestions. Typing out a full detailed and thought-out response for every nerf suggestion takes a lot of time, and considering how wildly unpopular these are, it just seems gratuitous frankly. But I'll type it out one last time: There are plenty of good weapons in the game, and the D'Lore isn't even my favourite either. However given that it's one of the most expensive weapons in the donor store and I like to do my part to support the server financially, it's a cool weapon to own and it seems reasonable for the price to be high given that it's among other decent weapons with a cool and unique name and skin. There are a lot of other weapons that do the same job with similar stats, but this one gets a lot of hate for the fact it's a donor weapon. What I'm against is spending a reasonable amount of money on something only for it to be nerfed, taking away any of its appeal, and making it pretty worthless, and I'm not alone in that thought either. I can fully understand weapons like the machete being restricted to melee only (no longer throwable) because of the exploits and issues surrounding it, but that isn't the case with the D'Lore at all, there's nothing actually wrong with it. Imagine saving up to buy a car you've always wanted, and a couple of years down the line you get a recall letter to say "we're sorry but it seems other drivers don't like how powerful the car you purchased is, so we're recalling it to tune it down to below that of other comparable brands"; how would you feel? Then with regards to this suggestion, as Shank pointed out, it was the AW50 which was nerfed and exists separately in DarkRP, so perhaps we should change the focus of the nerf to that weapon, if we want to be totally accurate? Not that it's even comparable, it's a totally different game altogether. By that metric, the physgun should really be a super gravity gun like in HL2. As far as having "less chance to win" for players without the D'Lore, after the last suggestion I made a point of defending my base with the cheapest pistol in the game (the HK 45 which goes for $1000 in-game) and I've happily defended my base from a good number of raids. So to say it gives a greater ability to 'win' isn't accurate, it's just down to experience and in my early days I used to get raided quite often even with some decent perma weapons for the sole reason that I wasn't very good at the game back then. But lets say that despite all that you still want to use a D'Lore, feel free to buy one with credits? Sure it's temporary, but it's still available and lets be honest, a lot of us have a ton of unspent credits from our playtime. Either that or if you really want a perma-version, then do what many have done and trade in-game for someone else to get it for you, meaning you never spend your own money? I even offered to buy anyone a permanent D'Lore in my response to the last suggestion if anyone could raid my base with any weapon while I only use a HK45 for defence, and as of yet I've had no serious takers on the offer. This suggestion is just simply another jab at the D'Lore, or as I said before, another 'nerf the D'Lore post', which is all it is. Just to recap then: - If we want to be accurate to CS, it's the AW50 we want to look at (which exists seperatly in DarkRP) so the D'Lore is the wrong weapon - It doesn't change the balance, even the cheapest pistol in the game can defend your base perfectly fine - The D'Lore is still available to non-donors, via the credits menu or by trading in-game - There are other similar stat weapons which are ignored, the D'Lore is targeted - There's nothing actually wrong with it (in terms of exploits or other issues, such as with the machete) - Nerfing the D'Lore only serves to irritate those who've paid good money for a unique weapon, without making any difference to anything else My -1 stands strong, but I hope that's answered some questions anyway.

It's the same couple of people who make these same suggestions, didn't you make the last 'Nerf the D'Lore' suggestion or was it the one before? And you regularly use the forums so this doesn't make a lot of sense. Of course they are? Are you saying that the forums don't reflect the player base? Anyone is welcome to sign up, there's no high-class requirements, they could jump right in and get involved with this? So I'm not sure what you mean. Obviously it's more likely for it to be players who've been around more than a few days, I wouldn't expect everyone who played for an hour on the server to make a forums account.

Come on now WohMi, the majority strongly dislike the idea. No need to insult everyone who's against nerfing the D'Lore, and there's been a ton of previously denied suggestions on the same subject. It doesn't inspire me with much confidence that you've got the player base in mind when you say "fuck them nooblets", I think the gig is up.

+1 You have a fantastic application, one of the best I've seen in quite a while! I love the reasons that you have given for wanting to join the staff team and previous experience is always helpful even if it's not the same game mode, plus you've been around in the community for quite some time too. You have a clean record too (no warns or bans) which shows that you're of good character during the time that you've played. Sure, you only just meet the requirement for the number of hours needed, but as long as you do, then I don't see it as a negative by any means. While I haven't had the chance to meet you personally yet, you have AJ's referral which gives me a lot of confidence, plus Korn said he's seen you in-game and has good things to say. Overall I think you'd be a welcome addition to the team and so I wish you the best of luck

ACCEPTED Due to a lack of evidence supporting this ban, I'm unable to form a proper judgement with this case and as a result you will be unbanned. Korn will be spoken to about keeping records of evidence for a sufficient amount of time. @Shin_Tsukimi @stretchy @Glorbnob @FlameSoul @GrosCave Please lock and move